fluoride: the deadly legacy

8/3/2019 Fluoride: The Deadly Legacy

1/48

Fluoride: The Deadly Legacy by Gary Null, Ph.D.

There's nothing like a glass of cool, clear water to quench one's thirst. But

the next time you or your child reaches for one, you might want to questionwhether that water is in fact, too toxic to drink. If your water is fluoridated,the answer may well be yes.

For decades, we have been told a lie, a lie that has led to the deaths ofhundreds of thousands of Americans and the weakening of the immunesystems of tens of millions more. This lie is called fluoridation. A process wewere led to believe was a safe and effective method of protecting teeth fromdecay is in fact a fraud.

In recent years it has been shown that fluoridation is neither essential for

good health nor protective of teeth. What it does do is poison the body. Newfindings have documented undeniable evidence of the harms thatfluoridation has exposed us to:

-A 2007 Mexican study found that fluoride has a neurotoxic effect,linking high fluoride exposure to lower IQ, academic performance, anddiminished memory function. The scientists found ominous parallelsbetween the side effects of fluoride and arsenic exposure (1a).

-Another recent study found that lifetime fluoridation may causeSeronegative arthritis, a condition that presents similar symptoms to

rheumatic arthritis, but is caused by increase in bone density and thecalcification of ligaments triggered by fluoride exposure (2a).

-In 2004, The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey(NHANES) documented that 41% of 12-15 year-olds and 36% of 16-19year-olds have dental fluorosis, the browning and gradual decay of dentinein our mouths (3a).

-In 2007, a Dartmouth study showed that children brought up onfluoridated water have significantly higher levels of lead in their blood,which increases the toxification of our bodies (4a).

-Two separate 2007 studies found that low level exposure of Fluoridecaused sperm damage in rats and mice, leaving them in a state unableto obtain full fertilizing capability (5a, 6a). The scientists stronglysuggest this effect would happen in humans as well.

We know of these dangerous effects. The FDA knows about these effects. In


2/48

the last five years alone, there have been countless studies proving theineffectiveness of fluoride.

Thus, some fundamental questions arise: 1) how is it possible that the publichas all been misled? 2) why does public health policy and the Americanmedia continue to live with and perpetuate this scientific sham?

This History of Fluoride, a Toxic Waste"We would not purposely add arsenic to the water supply. And we would notpurposely add lead. But we do add fluoride. The fact is that fluoride is moretoxic than lead and just slightly less toxic than arsenic."1

These words of Dr. John Yiamouyiannis may come as a shock to you because,if you're like most Americans, you have positive associations with fluoride.

You may envision tooth protection, strong bones, and a government thatcares about your dental needs. What you may not know is that the fluorideadded to drinking water and toothpaste is a crude industrial waste product ofthe aluminum and fertilizer industries, and a substance toxic enough to beused as rat poison. In fact, thats what fluoride was originally manufacturedas, a toxic pesticide chemical.How is it that Americans have learned to lovean environmental hazard? This phenomenon can be attributed to a carefullyplanned marketing program launched even before Grand Rapids, Michigan,became the first community to officially fluoridate its drinking water in1945.2 As a result of this ongoing campaign, nearly two-thirds of the nationhas enthusiastically followed Grand Rapids' example. But this push for

fluoridation has less to do with a concern for America's health than withindustry's penchant to expand at the expense of our nation's well-being.

What is Fluoride? Many people associate fluoride with its periodic tablenamesake, fluorine. While fluorine is an element (a gas that is frequentlylisted as a trace mineral and human nutrient), fluoride is very different.Fluoride is a compound of fluorine, and while fluorine is one of earths naturalelements, fluoride is a chemical byproduct (chemical byproduct = toxicwaste) of aluminum, phosphate, cement, steel, and nuclear weaponsmanufacturing.3 Its toxicity was recognized at the beginning of theIndustrial Revolution, when, in the 1850s iron and copper factories

discharged it into the air and poisoned plants, animals, and people.4In the early years of the 20th Century, a young dentist named FrederickMcKay settled in Colorado Springs, Colorado. There he discovered that asmany as 90% of lifetime residents of the town had grotesque brown stains ontheir teeth, and that the tooth enamel had an irregularsurface texturedescribed as "mottled". Locals referred to the familiar condition as ColoradoBrown Stain, but no one had a clue as to its cause. Over the next two


3/48

decades Dr. McKay, later with the help of dental researcher G. V. Black,proved that the cause was something contaminating the water supply. Theyalso speculated that the affected teeth might be somewhat more resistant todecay.5

By the 1920's, rapid industrial growth had exacerbated the problems ofindustrial pollution, and fluoride was one of the biggest problems. Medicalwriter Joel Griffiths explains that "it was abundantly clear to both industryand government that spectacular U.S. industrial expansion -- and theeconomic and military power and vast profits it promised -- wouldnecessitate releasing millions of tons of waste fluoride into theenvironment.6Their biggest fear was that "if serious injury to people wereestablished, lawsuits alone could prove devastating to companies, whilepublic outcry could force industry-wide government regulations, billions inpollution-control costs, and even mandatory changes in high-fluoride raw

materials and profitable technologies."7In 1931, by means of photo-spectrographic analysis of McKay and Black'swater samples conducted at the laboratories at the Aluminum Company ofAmerica (ALCOA), it was confirmed that the cause of the mottled teeth wasfluoride in the water supply. ALCOA took a proprietary interest in this issue,since fluoride is a major waste product of aluminum production. Thecompany wanted to know how much fluoride exposure people could toleratewithout getting mottled, discolored teeth. Or, more specifically, how muchfluoride could ALCOA release into the nation's earth, water, and air withoutthe public realizing that the company was polluting the environment with apowerful toxin?8

That question was to be addressed later that same year, when H. TrendleyDean was sent to study water sources in 345 Texas communities. Dean, aformer dental surgeon for the US Public Health Service, was then head of theDental Hygiene Unit of the National Institute of Health. (Dean's overseer andmentor at the USPHS had been Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon, afounder and major stockholder of ALCOA.) Based on his own research, Deanclaimed that "fluoride levels of up to 1.0 ppm in drinking water did not causemottled enamel; if the fluoride exceeded this level, however, fluorosis wouldoccur."9

Dean, while establishing the threshold for fluoridation, also explored the idea

that fluorosis victims mottled, discolored teeth were especially decayresistant. Dean suspected that 1ppm of fluoride added to the water supplywould prevent tooth decay, while avoiding damage to bones and teeth.10

He recommended further studies to determine whether his hypothesiswas true.


4/48

According to Griffiths, the news that adding fluoride to the water supply forimproved dental health was "galvanic, particularly to the Mellon Institute(ALCOA's Pittsburgh industrial research lab). Consequently, they initiatedtheir own research. Biochemist Gerald J. Cox immediately fluoridated some

lab rats in a study and concluded that fluoride reduced cavities and that:"The case should be regarded as proved." In a historic moment in 1939, thefirst public proposal that the U.S. should fluoridate its water supplies wasmade not by a doctor, or dentist, but by Cox, an industry scientist workingfor a company threatened by fluoride damage claims and burdened by theodious expense of disposing of tons of toxic industrial waste. Cox begantouring the country, campaigning for fluoridation.11

Dean, meanwhile, continued his research and became the authority onpublic water fluoridation. He became the first dental scientist at the NationalInstitute of Health, advancing to director of the dental research section in

1945. After World War II, he directed epidemiological studies for the Army inGermany. When Congress established the National Institute of DentalResearch (NIDR) in 1948, Dean was appointed its director, a position he helduntil retiring in 1953.12 In his post at the NIDR, oversaw the first clinical trialof fluoridation in an American city: Grand Rapids, Michigan.13

With Deans impressive credentials, it is easy to assumeand many dothathis findings were scientifically sound. Unfortunately, Deans science, whenplaced under further scrutiny, is shaky, not solid; biased, not impartial, andabove all, hardly a standard sound enough to launch mass fluoridation. Anindependent study of his results revealed that he had engaged in "selectiveuse of data," employing figures from 21 cities that confirmed his findings,and ignoring those from 272 other localities that didn't.14 In a 1955 courtcase challenging fluoridation, Dean admitted under oath that his publishedconclusions were wrong.15 In hearings conducted by the AMA in 1957, he wasforced to admit that dental fluorosis, the first sign of fluoride overdose, couldbe caused by water fluoridated at 1.0 ppm.16 Shockingly, these admissionswere not widely publicized, and they were never acknowledged by theUSPHS, the American Dental Association, or the other governmental bodiesresponsible for foisting fluoride on the public. Consequently, this dangerousindustrial waste carcinogenic is still dumped in our water today.At first, industry could dispose of fluoride legally only in small amounts by

selling it to insecticide and rat poison manufacturers.17

But Dean's"discovery," paved the way for a commercial outlet for the toxin. Griffithswrites that this was not a scientific breakthrough, but rather part of a "publicdisinformation campaign" by the aluminum industry "to convince the publicthat fluoride was safe and good," Industry's need prompted Alcoa-fundedscientist Gerald J. Cox to announce that "The present trend toward completeremoval of fluoride from water may need some reversal."18 Griffiths writes:


5/48

"The big news in Cox's announcement was that this 'apparently worthless by-product' had not only been proved safe (in low doses), but actuallybeneficial; it might reduce cavities in children. A proposal was in the air to

add fluoride to the entire nation's drinking water. While the dose to eachindividual would be low, 'fluoridation' on a national scale would require theannual addition of hundreds of thousands of tons of fluoride to the country'sdrinking water.

"Government and industry - especially Alcoa - strongly supported intentionalwater fluoridation... [It] made possible a master public relations stroke - onethat could keep scientists and the public off fluoride's case for years to come.If the leaders of dentistry, medicine, and public health could be persuaded toendorse fluoride in the public's drinking water, proclaiming to the nation thatthere was a 'wide margin of safety,' how were they going to turn around later

and say industry's fluoride pollution was dangerous?

"As for the public, if fluoride could be introduced as a health enhancingsubstance that should be added to the environment for the children's sake,those opposing it would look like quacks and lunatics....

"Back at the Mellon Institute, Alcoa's Pittsburgh Industrial research lab, thisnews was galvanic. Alcoa-sponsored biochemist Gerald J. Cox immediatelyfluoridated some lab rats in a study and concluded that fluoride reducedcavities and that 'The case should be regarded as proved.' In a historicmoment in 1939, the first public proposal that the U.S. should fluoridate its

water supplies was made - not by a doctor, or dentist, but by Cox, anindustry scientist working for a company threatened by fluoride damageclaims."19

Once the plan was put into action, industry was buoyant. They had finallyfound the channel for fluoride that they were looking for, and they were evencheered on by dentists, government agencies, and the public. ChemicalWeek, a publication for the chemical industry, described the tenor of thetimes when they exclaimed that: "All over the country, slide rules are gettingwarm as waterworks engineers figure the cost of adding fluoride to theirwater supplies." The article further explained that the general public quickly

adhered to the new trend urged upon them by the U.S. Public Health Service,the American Dental Association, the State Dental Health Directors, variousstate and local health bodies, and vocal women's clubs from coast to coast.They further wrote that [fluoridation] adds up to a nice piece of business onall sides and many firms are cheering the PHS and similar groups as theyplump for increasing adoption of fluoridation.20


6/48

Such overwhelming acceptance allowed government and industry to proceedhastily, albeit irresponsibly. The Grand Rapids experiment was supposed totake 15 years, during which time health benefits and hazards were to bestudied. In 1946, however, just one year into the experiment, six more U.S.

cities adopted the process. By 1947, 87 more communities were treated;popular demand was the official reason for this unscientific haste.

The general public and its leaders did support the cause, but only after amassive government public relations campaign spearheaded by Edward L.Bernays, (a nephew of Sigmund Freud). Bernays, a public relations pioneerwho has been called "the original spin doctor,"21 was a masterful PRstrategist. As a result of his influence, Griffiths writes, "Almost overnight...thepopular image of fluoride -- which at the time was being widely sold as ratand bug poison -- became that of a beneficial provider of gleaming smiles,absolutely safe, and good for children, bestowed by a benevolent paternal

government. Its opponents were permanently engraved on the public mindas crackpots..."22

Griffiths explains that while opposition to fluoridation is usually associatedwith right-wingers, this picture is not totally accurate. He provides aninteresting historical perspective on the anti- fluoridation stance:

"Fluoridation attracted opponents from every point on the continuum ofpolitics and sanity. The prospect of the government mass-medicating thewater supplies with a well- known rat poison to prevent a nonlethal diseaseflipped the switches of delusionals across the country - as well as generating

concern among responsible scientists, doctors, and citizens.

"Moreover, by a fortuitous twist of circumstances, fluoride's naturalopponents on the left were alienated from the rest of the opposition. OscarEwing, a Federal Security Agencyadministrator, was a Truman "fair dealer" who pushed many progressiveprograms such as nationalized medicine. Fluoridation was lumped with hisproposals. Inevitably, it was attacked by conservatives as a manifestation of"creeping socialism," while the left rallied to its support. Later during theMcCarthy era, the left was further alienated from the opposition whenextreme right-wing groups, including the John Birch Society and the Ku Klux

Klan, raved that fluoridation was a plot by the Soviet Union and/orcommunists in the government to poison America's brain cells.

"It was a simple task for promoters, under the guidance of the 'original spindoctor,' to paint all opponents as deranged - and they played this angle tothe hilt....


7/48

"Actually, many of the strongest opponents originally started out asproponents, but changed their minds after a close look at the evidence. Andmany opponents came to view fluoridation not as a communist plot, butsimply as a capitalist-style con job of epic proportions. Some could be

termed early environmentalists, such as the physicians George L. Waldbottand Frederick B. Exner, who first documented government-industrycomplicity in hiding the hazards of fluoride pollution from the public.Waldbott and Exner risked their careers in a clash with fluoride defenders,only to see their cause buried in toothpaste ads."23

By 1950, fluoridation's image was a sterling one, and there was not muchscience could do at this point. The Public Health Service was fluoridation'smain source of funding as well as its promoter, and therefore caught in afundamental conflict of interest.24 If fluoridation was found to be unsafeand ineffective, and laws were repealed, the organization feared a loss of

face, since scientists, politicians, dental groups, and physicians unanimouslysupported it.25 For this reason, studies concerning its effects were notundertaken. The Oakland Tribune noted this when it stated that "publichealth officials have often suppressed scientific doubts" about fluoridation.26Waldbott sums up the situation when he states that from the beginning, thecontroversy over fluoridating water supplies was "a political, not a scientifichealth issue."27

The clever marketing of fluoride continued. In a 1983 letter from theEnvironmental Protection Agency, then Deputy Assistant Administrator forWater, Rebecca Hammer, wrote that EPAs stance on fluoridation: " [the EPA]regards [fluoridation] as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standingproblem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizermanufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized and water utilities havea low-cost source of fluoride available to them."28 More recently, a 1992policy statement from the Department of Health and Human Services says,"A recent comprehensive PHS review of the benefits and potential healthrisks of fluoride has concluded that the practice of fluoridating communitywater supplies is safe and effective."29

Today, nearly 250 million people worldwide drink fluoridated water, includingabout 130 million Americans in 9600 communities. Out of the 50 largestcities in the US, 41 have fluoridated water.30

To help celebrate fluoride's widespread use, the media recently reported onthe 50th anniversary of fluoridation in Grand Rapids. Newspaper articlestitled "Fluoridation: a shining public healthsuccess"31 and "After 50 years, fluoride still works with a smile"32 paintedglowing pictures of the practice. Had investigators looked more closely,though, they might have learned that children in Muskegon, Michigan, a


8/48

nearby un-fluoridated "control" city, had equal drops in dental decay. Hadthey looked closer, they would have seen the dangerous truth behind thesupposed wonder of fluoride.

The Fluoride Myth Doesn't Hold WaterThe big hope for fluoride was its ability to immunize children's developingteeth against cavities. Rates of dental caries were supposed to plummet inareas where water was treated. Yet decades of experience and worldwideresearch have contradicted this expectation numerous times. Here are just afew examples:

In British Columbia, only 11% of the population drinks fluoridated water, asopposed to 40-70% in other Canadian regions. Yet British Columbia hasthe lowest rate of tooth decay in Canada. In addition, the lowest rates ofdental caries within the province are found in areas that do not have

their water supplies fluoridated.33

According to a Sierra Club study, people in un-fluoridated developing nationshave fewer dental caries than those living in industrialized nations. As aresult, they conclude that "fluoride is not essential to dental health."34

In 1986-87, the largest study on fluoridation and tooth decay ever wasperformed. The subjects were 39,000 school children between 5 and 17living in 84 areas around the country. A third of the places werefluoridated, a third were partially fluoridated, and a third were not.Results indicate no statistically significant differences in dental decaybetween fluoridated and un-fluoridated cities.35 The benefit tofluoridated communities, if there is any, amounts to 0.6 fewer decayedtooth surfaces per child, which is less than one percent of the toothsurfaces in a child's mouth.36

A World Health Organization survey reports a decline of dental decay inwestern Europe, which is 98% un-fluoridated. They state that westernEurope's declining dental decay rates are equal to and sometimes betterthan those in the U.S.37

A 1992 University of Arizona study yielded surprising results when theyfound that "the more fluoride a child drinks, the more cavities appear in

the teeth."38Although all Native American reservations are fluoridated, children living

there have much higher incidences of dental decay and other oralhealth problems than do children living in other U.S. communities.39

A 1999 study of water fluoridation in Italy shows that parents' socioeconomic


9/48

status, area of residence, and children's sweets consumption are moresignificant predictors of dental caries than fluoride consumption. Theauthors conclude that universal fluoridation is an inadequate approachand the decision to fluoridate or de-fluoridate water requires careful

epidemiological consideration.40

A 2001 article in the Journal of the American Dental Association admits thatthe fluoride that is swallowed and incorporated into teeth is"insufficient to have a measurable effect" on reducing cavities.41This isa stunning admission from the ADA, historically one of the principalsupporters and defenders of water fluoridation.

A follow-up of a study of the town of Kuopio, Finland six years afterfluoridation was discontinued found no increase in dental caries. Theauthors conclude that fluoridation was unnecessary to begin with.42

A study comparing prevalence and incidence of caries in 2,994 life-longresidents of British Columbia, Canada, in grades 5, 6, 11, 12, found thatcaries incidence was not different between the still-fluoridating andfluoridation-ended communities.43

In 1997, following the cessation of drinking water fluoridation in La Salud,Cuba, caries prevalence remained at a low level for the 6- to 9-year-oldsand appeared to decrease for the 10/11-year-olds. In the 12/13-year-olds, there was a significant decrease while the percentage of caries-free children of this age group had increased from 4.8 (1973) and 33.3(1982) up to 55.2%.44

A 1998 study conducted in New Zealand found that "when the timing ofvarious forms of fluoride supplementation is correlated with the declinein caries, the decline continues beyond the time of maximum populationcoverage with fluoridated water and fluoridated toothpaste." Theauthors call for a "reassessment of the fluoride effect."45

In contrast to the anticipated increase in dental caries following thecessation of water fluoridation in the German cities Chemnitz (formerlyKarl-Marx-Stadt) and Plauen, a significant fall in caries prevalence wasobserved. This trend corresponded to the national caries decline andappeared to be a new population-wide phenomenon.46

A 1999 New York State Department of Health study of 3,500 7-14-year-oldsshows that children in fluoridated Newburgh, New York, have no less toothdecay but significantly more dental fluorosis than children from Kingston,New York, which has never been fluoridated. Since 1945, children of the twotowns have been examined periodically in order to demonstrate that


10/48

fluoridation reduces tooth decay. "This new research shows the experimenthas failed," the report concludes.47 A similar comparison revealed that Inmost European countries, where [water fluoridation] has never beenadopted, a substantial decline [75%] in caries prevalence has been reported

in the last decades.48

In light of all the evidence, fluoride proponents now make more modestclaims. For example, in 1988, the ADA professed that a 40- to 60% cavityreduction could be achieved with the help of fluoride. Now they claim an 18-to 25% reduction. Other promoters mention a 12% decline in tooth decay.

And other former supporters are even beginning to question the need forfluoridation altogether. In 1990, a National Institute for Dental Researchreport stated that "it is likely that if caries in children remain at low levels ordecline further, the necessity of continuing the current variety and extent of

fluoride-based prevention programs will be questioned."49 This is a startlingclaim coming from the very same governmental organization thatspearheaded the drive for compulsory water fluoridation.

A 1999 review of literature conducted by Dr. Hardy Limeback, a long-timeadvocate of water fluoridation in Canada, indicates that the topical effect offluoride is its primary mechanism for the prevention of dental caries.Swallowing fluoridated water is ineffective and unnecessary. Limebackconcludes that everyone working in the dental health field must examinemore closely the risks and benefits of fluoride in all its delivery forms.50

According to Dr. Limeback, head of preventive dentistry at the

University of Toronto, 'Dental decay rates in North America are so low thatwater fluoridation provides little to no benefit whatsoever these days. In fact,studies show that when you turn the water fluoridation taps off and look fordental decay rates, they don't move whatsoever. There is no increase indental decay when you stop fluoridating.51 Limeback adds that what you dosee is an increase in unsightly dental fluorosis.52 Today fluorosis occurs ontwo or more teeth in 30% of children in areas where the water is fluoridated,and not all in its mildest form.53

In a letter published in 1999, dentist and public health official Dr. JohnColquhoun, formerly one of New Zealand's most prominent pro-fluoridation

advocates and educators, explains how over the course of years he came torecognize that there was no benefit in water fluoridation, and that children'sdental health is slightly better in non-fluoridated areas than in fluoridatedones.54 As another sign of the growing disillusionment with fluoridation, theNational Institutes of Health conducted an intensive review of the datasupporting fluoride in tap waters, looking at over 560 studies, and expressedin a 2001 news release their disappointment in the overall quality of the


11/48

clinical data that it reviewed. According to the panel, far too many studieswere small, poorly described, or otherwise methodologically flawed.55

Most government agencies, however, continue to ignore the scientific

evidence and to market fluoridation by making fictional claims about itsbenefits and pushing for its expansion. For instance, according to the U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, "National surveys of oral healthdating back several decades document continuing decreases in tooth decayin children, adults and senior citizens. Nevertheless, there are parts of thecountry and particular populations that remain without protection. For thesereasons, the USPHS...has set a national goal for the year 2000 that 75% ofpersons served by community water systems will have access to optimallyfluoridated drinking water; currently this figure is just about 60%. The year2000 target goal is both desirable and yet challenging, based on pastprogress and continuing evidence of effectiveness and safety of this public

health measure."56This statement is flawed on several accounts. First, as we've seen, researchdoes not support the effectiveness of fluoridation for preventing toothdisease. Second, purported benefits are supposedly for children, not adultsand senior citizens. At about age 13, any advantage fluoridation might offercomes to an end and less than 1% of the fluoridated water supply reachesthis population.57 And third, fluoridation has never been proven safe. On thecontrary, numerous studies directly link fluoridation to disease, includingskeletal fluorosis, dental fluorosis, thyroid disorders, brain and kidneydamage, Alzheimer's disease, lead poisoning, and several rare forms ofcancer. This alone should force us to reconsider its use.

Biological Safety ConcernsOnly a small margin separates supposedly beneficial fluoride levels fromamounts that are known to cause adverse effects. Dr. James Patrick, aformer antibiotics research scientist at the National Institutes of Health,describes the predicament:

"[There is] a very low margin of safety involved in fluoridating water. Aconcentration of about 1 ppm is recommended. ...in several countries,severe fluorosis has been documented from water

supplies containing only 2 or 3 ppm. In the development of drugs... wegenerally insist on a therapeutic index (margin of safety) of the order of 100;a therapeutic index of 2 or 3 is totally unacceptable, yet that is what hasbeen proposed for public water supplies."58

Other countries argue that even 1 ppm is not a safe concentration. Canadianstudies, for example, imply that children under three should have no fluoride


12/48

whatsoever. The Journal of the Canadian Dental Association states that"fluoride supplements should not be recommended for children less than 3years old."59 Since these supplements contain the same amount of fluorideas water does, they are basically saying that children under the age of three

shouldn't be drinking fluoridated water at all, under any circumstance. Japanhas reduced the amount of fluoride in their drinking water to one-eighth ofwhat is recommended in the U.S. Instead of 1 milligram per liter, they useless than 15 hundredths of a milligram per liter as the upper limit allowed.60The 1 ppm dosage recommendation for water fluoridation has a checkeredpast, and its present is even more so. As we have seen, the first mention ofthis "magic" number was made by Dr. Trendley Dean, who jiggled his resultsto reach the conclusion that "fluoride levels of up to 1.0 ppm in drinkingwater did not cause mottled enamel; if the fluoride exceeded this level,however, fluorosis would occur."61

But the adoption of this dosage for water fluoridation was not Dean'sbrainchild. It was set in 1953 by Dr. Harold C. Hodge, Ph.D., then chairman ofthe US National Academy of Sciences committee on toxicology.Unfortunately, Dr. Hodge made a serious miscalculation in his estimate ofthe safe dosage level for fluoride. His figures err by a factor of 2.25, whichmeans that they understate the toxicity of fluoride considerably. The story ofthis potentially fatal miscalculation is told in a document from the UKNational Pure Water Association:

It is important when any new drug is marketed that the dose at which it istoxic is determined. There is then a margin allowed for safety (usually a

factor of 100) and a maximum dose is published. In 1953 the NationalAcademy of Sciences published their estimate of the quantity of fluoridewhich produces the condition known as crippling skeletal fluorosis. Thecalculation was done by a famous toxicologist, Harold C. Hodge, Ph.D., whowas chairman of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) committee ontoxicology.

To arrive at his figures, Hodge cited a classic study of the effects of fluorideamong cryolite workers by a European researcher, Kaj Roholm, andpublished in 1937. Roholm's dosage figures were presented in milligrams offluoride per kilogram of body weight. In his study, Roholm showed that at

levels of 0.2 to 0.35mg/kg some workers developed crippling skeletalfluorosis in a very short time. The first stage of the disease appeared, ingeneral, after 2 12 years; Stage two was reached by 4 12 years; andcrippling skeletal fluorosis appeared after 11 years.62Hodge wanted to apply Roholm's figures to a typical range of body weights inorder to set a maximum intake level in milligrams per day. But Hodge wasAmerican and used to dealing in pounds rather than kilograms. By using a


13/48

range of body weights from 100 to 229 pounds, he multiplied the 0.2 mgfigure by 100 pounds, giving a figure of 20 mg/day; and 0.35 mg by 229pounds yielded 80 mg/day. Thus the amounts of fluoride which would causecrippling skeletal fluorosis, he said, were 20mg to 80mg per day. And rather

than quote Roholm's eleven year figure for crippling fluorosis, he gave arange of 10 to 20 years. These are the figures that appear in the AmericanDental Association's pamphlet, Fluoridation Facts, and on which many otherarticles are based, even today.

But Hodge made a simple but significant error. Roholm's figures were not forpounds. They were milligram per kilogram figures. Unfortunately, Hodge wasthe expert and no-one, apparently, checked his figures. This error, whichgave a false safety margin more than double what it should have been wentunnoticed for many years until anti-fluoride campaigner, Darlene Sherrelltried to duplicate Hodge's arithmetic and couldn't make it add up. She

worked out that Hodge had made an error when he neglected to convertpounds to kilograms.

Correcting for this error, Sherrell reduced the amount of fluoride needed tobe crippling to 10 to 25 milligrams per day, for 10 to 20 years.

But fluorides accumulate throughout our lives so a higher intake will havethe same effect in a shorter time, and smaller doses will have the sameeffect in a longer time. If we apply Roholm's dosage figures to a lifetime of55 to 96 years, just 1 mg per day (the amount in one liter of water) for each55 pounds of body weight could be a crippling dosage.

The NAS Admits It Was WrongIn 1989 Sherrell wrote to the NAS and asked on what they based their 20 to80 mg/day figures. Two years passed before the Academy told her that theyhad identified Hodge's interpretation of Roholm as the data source.

Four years later the error was finally corrected by the National ResearchCouncil's Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology in their 1993publication, Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride where they changed thefigure from 20-80mg/day to 10-20mg/day.63

As it happens, Hodge had written a chapter in a book released in 1979entitled Continuing Evaluation of the Use of Fluorides. In it Hodge hadcorrected his previously published figures. But nobody seemed to notice. In1991, when the US Department of Health and Human Services publishedtheir Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks, they continued to use figures of20-80 mg/day as the 'crippling daily dose of fluoride'. As, indeed does thecurrent RDA and Dietary Reference Intakes published by the Institute of


14/48

Medicine in 1997.

Myths are Very Hard to DislodgeWe can get a good idea of how much fluoride is safe by working with

Roholm's figures. You will remember that after the figures had beencorrected, the amount needed to cause crippling fluorosis in a 100 to 229 lbperson was reckoned to be 10 to 20 mg per day for 10 to 20 years. Sincefluorides accumulate in a linear fashion, the crippling dosage of 10 mg perday for 10 years is the same as 5 mg per day for 20 years, and so on. If weextrapolate this to a normal lifetime with fluoridated water this is the sameas 2.5 to 5 mg per day for 40 to 80 years. But we shouldnote that, for persons with kidney disease, the risk is greater because lessfluoride will be eliminated by their malfunctioning kidneys.

It is also important to note that these figures are for crippling fluorosis, the

last stage. It will take only four years at 10 mg/day, or sixteen years at 2.5mg per day before a 100 pound individual can expect to experience phase 2,musculo-skeletal fluorosis, with chronic joint pain and arthritic symptoms -with or without osteoporosis. That is the amount of fluoride found in just 212 liters of water. And that's without counting the extra that today isinevitably found in foods, toothpaste, et cetera.

From this it is clear that the only safe limit for fluoride is none.

Even supposing that low concentrations are safe, there is no way to controlhow much fluoride different people consume, as some take in a lot more

than others. For example, laborers, athletes, diabetics, and those living inhot or dry regions can all be expected to drink more water, and thereforemore fluoride (in fluoridated areas) than others.64 Due to such widevariations in water consumption, it is impossible to scientifically control whatdosage of fluoride a person receives via the water supply.65

In "50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation,"66 Paul Connett, Ph.D., Professor ofChemistry at St. Lawrence University (NY) states that the supposedly safefluoride levels in our water may pose a particular danger for any of themillions of people who suffer from thyroid disorders. He explains:

Earlier in the 20th century, fluoride was prescribed by a number ofEuropean doctors to reduce the activity of the thyroid gland for thosesuffering from hyperthyroidism (over active thyroid).67

With water fluoridation, we are forcing people to drink a thyroid-depressingmedication which could serve to promote higher levels of hypothyroidism(under active thyroid) in the population, and all the subsequent problems


15/48

related to this disorder. Such problems include depression, fatigue, weightgain, muscle and joint pains, increased cholesterol levels, and heart disease.It bears noting that according to the Department of Health and HumanServices (1991) fluoride exposure in fluoridated communities is estimated to

range from 1.58 to 6.6 mg/day, which is a range that actually overlaps thedose (2.3 - 4.5 mg/day) shown to decrease the functioning of the humanthyroid.68 This is a remarkable fact, and certainly deserves greaterattention considering the rampant and increasing problem of hypothyroidismin the United States. (In 1999 the second most prescribed drug of the yearwas Synthroid, a hormone replacement drug, which is used to treat an underactive thyroid.) More than twenty million people in the U.S. receivetreatment for thyroid problems and many others are thought to goundiagnosed.69

Today, 90% of the fluoride added to our drinking water is no longer a natural

sodium fluoride compound. Today's fluoride is industrial waste that iscomplexed with silica or sodium. "Fluoride complexed with silica or sodium isreadily ionized to free fluoride ions that are quickly absorbed in thegastrointestinal tract, whereas, when chemically bound to calcium, less of itionizes andless is absorbed. Calcium inhibits fluoride absorption and is, in fact, thetreatment of choice for fluoride ingestion overdoses."70

Another concern is that fluoride is not found only in drinking water; it iseverywhere. Fluoride is found in foods that are processed, which, in theUnited States, include nearly all bottled drinks and canned foods.71

Researchers writing in The Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry havefound that fruit juices, in particular, contain significant amounts of fluoride. Ina recent study, a variety of popular juices and juice blends were analyzedand it was discovered that 42% of the samples examined had more than lppm of fluoride, with some brands of grape juice containing much higherlevels - up to 6.8 ppm! The authors cite the common practice of usingfluoride- containing insecticide in growing grapes as a factor in these highlevels, and they suggest that the fluoride content of beverages be printed ontheir labels, as is other nutritional information.72 Considering how much juicesome children ingest, and the fact that youngsters often insist on particularbrands that they consume day after day, labeling seems like a prudent idea.

Clean water activist Jeff Green points out that fluoride is "in Wheaties at 10ppm, 10 times the amount that you find in water. It's in Post Grape Nuts andShredded Wheat and Fruit Loops. These are items that people are eating allthe time without realizing that it has fluoride in it. Because it's a pesticideresidue that's allowed to be on produce now it's taken a big jump and theEPA has allowed it to be at really high levels, 180 ppm on a head of lettuce,


16/48

55 ppm on raisins. I mean no child is going to wash all that off."73

Prepared baby foods are a problem, too. A 1997 article in the Journal of theAmerican Dental Association74 warns that some baby foods contain such high

levels of fluoride that babies who eat the food risk dental fluorosis. "Anyinfants who regularly eat more than a couple of ounces of infant foodscontaining high-fluoride-content chicken would be at elevated fluorosis risk,"the authors conclude.75 Infants who eat large quantities of dry infantcereals reconstituted with fluoridated water could ingest substantialquantities of fluoride from this source, this study shows. "Children shouldalso be monitored to make sure that they do not ingest too much fluoridefrom other sources such as fluoride dentifrice, dietary fluoride supplementsor fluoridated water...."76

Fluoride exposure during infancy can be expect to increase risk of fluoride-related illness, since a recent study shows that the first year of life is themost critical period for fluoride exposure. Children exposed during the firstyear of life, and to a lesser extent in the second year, are far more likely todevelop fluorosis than those whose exposure begins later. The earlymineralizing teeth-the central incisors and first molars-are most likely to beaffected.77

This is confirmed by a recent study of fluorosis risk. "There is substantialevidence that fluoridated water, fluoride supplements, infant formulas, andfluoride toothpastes are risk factors for fluorosis," alone and together,reports Ohio State University researcher Dr. Ana Karina Mascarenhas.78

A recent study of fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities in Brazilproved that fluoride toothpaste contributes to fluorosis. In the study, childrenwho started using fluoride before theage of three were 4.43 times more likely to have dental fluorosis than thosewho started using it after the age of three.79

Dr. Connett observes that "the level of fluoride put into water (1 ppm) is 100times higher than normally found in mothers' milk (0.01 ppm). There are nobenefits, only risks, for infants ingesting this heightened level of fluoride atsuch an early age (this is an age where susceptibility to environmental toxinsis particularly high)."80

Fluorosis get worse as a child approaches puberty, according to study donein Norway. The study showed a significant increase in the severity offluorosis with increasing age in a high fluoride community, whereas nochange in severity with age was observed in a low fluoride community.Fluorosis resulting from high fluoride content of drinking water increasesbetween the ages of ten and fourteen.81


17/48

But beyond this is the larger issue that this study brings up: Is it wise tosubject children and others who are heavy juice drinkers to additionalfluoride in their water?

Here's a little-publicized reality: Cooking can greatly increase a food'sfluoride content. Peas, for example, contain 12 micrograms of fluoride whenraw and 1500 micrograms after they are cooked in fluoridated water, whichis a tremendous difference. Furthermore, fluoride is an ingredient inpharmaceuticals, aerosols, insecticides, and pesticides.

And of course, toothpastes. It's interesting to note that in the 1950s,fluoridated toothpastes were required to carry warnings on their labelssaying that they were not to be used in areas where water was alreadyfluoridated. Crest toothpaste went so far as to write: "Caution: Childrenunder 6 should not use Crest." These regulations were dropped in 1958,

although no new research was available to prove that the overdose hazardno longer existed. Today, common fluoride levels in toothpaste are 1000ppm. Research chemist Woodfun Ligon notes that swallowing a small amountadds substantially to fluoride intake. Dentists say that children commonlyingest up to 0.5 mg of fluoride a day from toothpaste.82

Dr. Hardy Limeback cites studies conducted by the toothpastemanufacturers showing that children under the age of six typically swallowas much as 60 percent of the toothpaste that goes into their mouths. "Thewarning labels, in my personal opinion, are there to get them off the hook inthe next ten years. People who have been exposed to too much fluoride

ingestion before the tubes were labeled have a case against the toothpastecompanies. They weren't told that a lifetime of fluoride ingestion may beharmful."83

Which begs the question: How safe is all this fluoride? According to scientistsand informed doctors, such as Dr. John Lee, it is not safe at all. Dr. Lee firsttook an anti-fluoridation stance back in 1972, when as chairman of anenvironmental health committee for a local medical society, he was asked tostate their position on the subject. He stated that after investigating thereferences given by both pro- and anti-fluoridationists, the group discoveredthree important things:

"One, the claims of benefit of fluoride, the 60% reduction of cavities, was notestablished by any of these studies. Two, we found that the investigationsinto the toxic side effects of fluoride have not been done in any way that wasacceptable. And three, we discovered that the estimate of the amount offluoride in the food chain, in the total daily fluoride intake, had beenmeasured in 1943, and not since then. By adding the amount of fluoride that


18/48


19/48

additive because of fears of lawsuits. The climate is ripe for these andGlasser points out that such a class action suit has already been filed inEngland against the manufacturers of fluoride-containing products on behalfof children suffering from dental fluorosis. A major threat

when one considers that the CDC is reporting anywhere from 1/3 to1/2 of allschool children in the US suffer from fluoride overdose and sport the pitted,discoloration of dental fluorosis.92Still, certain segments of industry have yet to get the message. A recentnewspaper ad campaign promotes Dannon's "Fluoride to Go" spring water"for kids who can't sit still."93 Supplied in convenient kid-sized bottles withthe pop-up "athletic" cap kids adore, the product perpetuates fluoride's falsepromise of better dental health for the new generation of kids for whombottled water is more desirable than soda pop. The irony is that the shiftfrom pop to water is one thing that does impact children's dental healthsignificantly. Fluoride is totally out of place in this scenario. It makes one

wonder how much fluoride might be in other brands of bottled water,including Evian and Volvic, which are owned by Dannon's parent company.

Skeletal FluorosisWhen fluoride is ingested, approximately 93% of it is absorbed into thebloodstream. A good part of the material is excreted, but the rest isdeposited in the bones and teeth,94 and is capable of causing a cripplingskeletal fluorosis. This is a condition that can damage the musculoskeletaland nervous systems and result in muscle wasting, limited joint motion,spine deformities, and calcification of the ligaments, as well as neurologicaldeficits.95

Large numbers of people in Japan, China, India, the Middle East, and Africahave been diagnosed with skeletal fluorosis from drinking naturallyfluoridated water. In India alone, nearly a million people suffer from theaffliction.96 While only a dozen cases of skeletal fluorosis have beenreported in the United States, Chemical and Engineering News states that"critics of the EPA standard speculate that there probably have been manymore cases of fluorosis - even crippling fluorosis - than the few reported inthe literature because most doctors in the U.S. have not studied the diseaseand do not know how to diagnose it."97 Because some symptoms ofskeletal fluorosis mimic those of arthritis, the first two clinical phases of

fluorosis can be easily misdiagnosed.98 According to Dr. Paul Connett, thecauses of most forms of osteoarthritis are unknown. It is not implausible thatthe high prevalence of arthritis in America (42 million Americans have it)may be related to our high levels of fluoride intake.99

Dr. Hardy Limeback says, Were quite concerned that fluoride accumulatesthrough a lifetime of water fluoridation and causes the bone to become more


20/48

brittle. We've started a study, and we're close to publishing it, that showsthat people who have been exposed to just 20 to 30 years of waterfluoridation have twice the amount of fluoride in their bones. Now there areall kinds of epidemiological studies to show that people who live in

fluoridated areas have a higher risk for hip and other kinds of fractures, suchas forearm fractures when they fall down. So this is quite a concern. Ipersonally don't think that we need to be ingesting fluoride to protect ourkids' teeth because they're already protected at a maximum. The rest of usare swallowing all this fluoride from the drinking water and possiblyincreasing the risk for bone fracture. It just doesn't make sense at all."100

Radiological changes in bone occur when fluoride exposure is 5 mg/day,according to the late Dr. George Waldbott, author of Fluoridation: The GreatDilemma. While this 5 mg/day level is the amount of fluoride ingested bymost people living in fluoridated areas,101 the number

increases for diabetics and laborers, who can ingest up to 20 mg of fluoridedaily. In addition, a survey conducted by the Department of Agricultureshows that 3% of the U.S. population drinks 4 liters or more of water everyday. If these individuals live in areas where the water contains a fluoridelevel of 4 ppm, allowed by the EPA, they are ingesting 16 mg/day from theconsumption of water alone, and are thus at greater risk for getting skeletalfluorosis.102

Bone FracturesAt one time, fluoride therapy was recommended for building denser bonesand preventing fractures associated with osteoporosis. Because fluoride hasbeen strongly associated with bone fragility and breakage, several articles inpeer-reviewed journals now suggest that fluoride actually causes more harmthan good. Three studies reported in The Journal of the American MedicalAssociation showed links between hip fractures and fluoride.103, 104,105

Findings here were, for instance, that there is "a small but significantincrease in the risk of hip fractures in both men and women exposed toartificial fluoridation at 1 ppm."106 In addition, the New England Journal ofMedicine reports that people given fluoride to cure their osteoporosisactually wound up with an increased non-vertebral fracture rate.107

Austrian researchers have also found that fluoride tablets make bonesmore susceptible to fractures.108The U.S. National Research Council states

that the U.S. hip fracture rate is now the highest in the world.109

A 2000 article in the journal Fluoride describes the bone effects of fluoride indetail.110 Fluoride may increase bone quantity (osteofluorosis, osteosclerosis)but also decrease bone quality and bone strength. It is well known thatpharmacological doses of fluoride increase the risk of torsion-type fractures(such as hip fractures) despite the appearance of greater bone density.Conventional medicine interprets the observed fluoride-induced increase of


21/48

serum alkaline phosphatase concentration as a sign of osteoblast activity.Actually, it is a reflection of increased mortality of osteocytes within bone.Osteocytes are rich in alkaline phosphatase, which is released when the cellsare killed by fluoride. It is unlikely, therefore, that a window of fluoride-

induced bone benefit exists.111

Louis V. Avioli, professor at the Washington University School of Medicine,says in a 1987 review of the subject: "Sodium fluoride therapy isaccompanied by so many medical complications and side effects that it ishardly worth exploring in depth as a therapeutic mode for postmenopausalosteoporosis, since it fails to decrease the propensity for hip fractures andincreases the incidence of stress fractures in the extremities."112

Fluoride's deleterious effect on bone is well documented. Early experimentsusing large doses of fluoride as a treatment for osteoporosis had disastrousresults. Dr. C. Rich warned that rather than strengthening bones, fluoridecould cause osteoarthritis, as well as gastric pain, calcification of thearteries, and visual disturbances.113

Dr. Paul Connett cites two epidemiological studies suggesting a possibleassociation with osteosarcoma, bone cancer, in young men living influoridated areas.114 One is the report of the U.S. National ToxicologyProgram mentioned earlier, which first uncovered the epidemiologicalevidence of increased osteosarcoma in boys and young men living influoridated areas.115 The second is a study conducted by the New JerseyDepartment of Health. Dr. Perry Cohn studied the incidence of the rare bonecancer in seven New Jersey counties relative to water fluoridation. In

fluoridated areas incidence of osteosarcoma in boys under the age of tenwas 4.6 times higher than in un-fluoridated areas, 3.5 times higher in the 10to 19 age group, and over twice as high in the 20 to 49 age group.116

Scientists at Yale University discovered that doses as low as 1 ppm offluoride decrease bone strength and elasticity, making fracture morelikely.117 Another group of researchers found that fluoride accelerated thedevelopment of osteoporosis.118 A 1992 study of elderly patients found 'asmall but significant increase in the risk of hip fracture in both men andwomen exposed to artificial fluoridation at 1 part per million'. As with thebone cancer, the adverse effects of fluoride accumulation on bone strength

were greater with men.119Fluoride has the potential to increase skeletal mass to a greater extent thanany other pharmacologic agent, yet it has proven difficult to translate thisinto therapeutic benefit for patients with low bone mass in diseases such asosteoporosis, according to a 1996 study by Michigan's Center forOsteoporosis Research. This apparent paradox can be explained in part by


22/48

toxic actions of the ion on skeletal mineralization, impairment of the normalprocesses of bone re-absorption, and fluoride-induced decreases in strengthper unit of bone (mass or volume).120Belgian arthritis researchers reviewed thirty years clinical research on

fluoride in the treatment of osteoporosis. They point out that fluoride has adual effect on osteoblasts (the cells from which bones are made). On the onehand, it increases the birthrate of osteoblasts, while on the other hand it hasa toxic effect on the individual cell with mineralization impairment andreduced apposition rate resembling osteomalacia. Fluoride has a positiveeffect on axial bone density, they say, but the axial bone gain is not matchedby similar changes in cortical bone. (The cortical bone is the hard outer partof bone where a bone's main strength lies.)121

Among the studies cited, two show an increased rate of hip fracture amongpatients treated with high doses of fluoride (50-75 mg per day). 122,123

In an experiment conducted with bovine bones, fluoride treatment reducedthe mechanical strength of bone tissue by converting small amounts of bonemineral to mostly calcium fluoride. This action reduces the structurallyeffective bone mineral content and also possibly affects the interfacebonding between the bone mineral and the organic matrix of the bonetissue.124 A Polish study published in 1999 found that treatment withfluoridated water decreases the bending strength of the femoral neck andshaft in laboratory rats.

A New Zealand review of recent scientific literature reveals a consistentpattern of evidence--hip fractures, skeletal fluorosis, the effect of fluoride onbone structure, fluoride levels in bones and osteosarcomas--pointing to theexistence of causal mechanisms by which fluoride damages bones. Publichealth authorities in Australia and New Zealand have appeared reluctant toconsider openly and frankly the implications of this and earlier scientificevidence unfavorable to the continuation of the fluoridation of drinking watersupplies.125

Dr. Connett reports that, of eighteen studies conducted since 1990, ten havefound an association between water fluoridation and hip fractures in theelderly.126 "One study found a dose-relatedincrease in hip fracture as the concentration of fluoride rose from 1 ppm to 8

ppm (Li et al, 1999, to be published). Hip fracture is a very serious issue forthe elderly, as a quarter of those who have a hip fracture die within a year ofthe operation, while 50 percent never regain an independent existence."127

Fluoride PoisoningIn May 1992, 260 people were poisoned, and one man died, in Hooper Bay,Alaska, after drinking water contaminated with 150 ppm of fluoride. The


23/48

accident was attributed to poor equipment and an unqualified operator.128Was this a fluke? Not at all. Over the years, the CDC has recorded

several incidents of excessive fluoride permeating the water supply andsickening or killing people. We don't usually hear about these occurrences in

news reports, but interested citizens have learned the truth from dataobtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Here is a partial list of toxicspills we have not been told about:

July 1993 -Chicago, Illinois: Three dialysis patients died and five experiencedtoxic reactions to the fluoridated water used in the treatment process.The CDC was asked to investigate, but to date there have been no pressreleases.

May 1993 - Kodiak, Alaska (Old Harbor): The population was warned not toconsume water due to high fluoride levels. They were also cautioned

against boiling the water, since this concentrates the substance andworsens the danger. Although equipment appeared to be functioningnormally, 22-24 ppm of fluoride was found in a sample.

July 1992 -Marin County, California: A pump malfunction allowed too muchfluoride into the Bon Tempe treatment plant. Two million gallons offluoridated water were diverted to Phoenix Lake, elevating the lakesurface by more than two inches and forcing some water over thespillway.

December 1991 - Benton Harbor, Michigan: A faulty pump allowed

approximately 900 gallons of hydrofluosilicic acid to leak into a chemicalstorage building at the water plant. City engineer Roland Klockowstated, "The concentrated hydrofluosilicic acid was so corrosive that itate through more than two inches of concrete in the storage building."This water did not reach water consumers, but fluoridation was stoppeduntil June 1993. The original equipment was only two years old.

July 1991 - Porgate, Michigan: After a fluoride injector pump failed, fluoridelevels reached 92 ppm and resulted in approximately 40 childrendeveloping abdominal pains, sickness, vomiting, and diarrhea at aschool arts and crafts show.

November 1979 - Annapolis, Maryland: One patient died and eight became illafter renal dialysis treatment. Symptoms included cardiac arrest(resuscitated), hypotension, chest pain, difficulty breathing, and a wholegamut of intestinal problems. Patients not on dialysis also reportednausea, headaches, cramps, diarrhea, and dizziness. The fluoride level


24/48

was later found to be 35 ppm; the problem was traced to a valve at awater plant that had been left open all night.129

Instead of addressing fluoridation's problematic safety record, officials have

chosen to cover it up. For example, the ADA says in one booklet distributedto health agencies that "Fluoride feeders are designed to stop operatingwhen a malfunction occurs... so prolonged over- fluoridation becomes amechanical impossibility."130 In addition, the information that does reachthe population after an accident is woefully inaccurate. A spill in Annapolis,Maryland, placed thousands at risk, but official reports reduced the numberto eight.131 Perhaps officials are afraid they will invite more lawsuits likethe one for $480 million by the wife of a dialysis patient who became brain-injured as the result of fluoride poisoning.

Not all fluoride poisoning is accidental. For decades, industry has knowingly

released massive quantities of fluoride into the air and water.Disenfranchised communities, with people least able to fight back, are oftenthe victims. Medical writer Joel Griffiths relays this description of whatindustrial pollution can do, in this case to a devastatingly poisoned Indianreservation:

"Cows crawled around the pasture on their bellies, inching along like giantsnails. So crippled by bone disease they could not stand up, this was the onlyway they could graze. Some died kneeling, after giving birth to stuntedcalves. Others kept on crawling until, no longer able to chew because theirteeth had crumbled down to the nerves, they began to starve...." They were

the cattle of the Mohawk Indians on the New York-Canadian St. RegisReservation during the period 1960-1975, when industrial pollutiondevastated the herd - and along with it, the Mohawks' way of life. ...Mohawkchildren, too, have shown signs of damage to bones and teeth."132

Mohawks filed suit against the Reynolds Metals Company and the AluminumCompany of America (Alcoa) in 1960, but ended up settling out of court,where they received $650,000 for their cows.133

CancerNumerous studies demonstrate links between fluoridation and cancer;however, agencies promoting fluoride consistently refute or cover up these

findings.

Even in the earliest days of fluoridation there were clear indications of thefluoride-cancer link. In the early 1950s Dr. Alfred Taylor, a biochemist at theUniversity of Texas conducted a series of experiments in which cancer-pronemice consuming water treated with sodium fluoride were found to have


25/48

shorter life spans than similar mice drinking distilled water.134 Taylor'sstudies were carried out twice, because after the first run the scientisthimself discovered that the chow that his mice had eaten had itselfcontained fluoride, thus clouding the results. On his own initiative, Taylor ran

the whole experiment a second time. The second run, with mice fed fluoride-free chow, was conclusive. Clearly fluoride could no longer be considered aharmless additive to drinking water.135

John Remington Graham and Pierre-Jean Morin, in their exhaustive survey offluoridation litigation136 observe that "Taylor's work was published at apolitically sensitive time, because the last stages of the much-boastedsurveys at Newburgh and Kingston were underway. The obvious meaning ofDr. Taylor's results was that a possible danger to human health had beenoverlooked, and that widespread fluoridation should be delayed until thesituation had been clarified. However, the ADA and the USPHS had already

endorsed and begun the drive to promote fluoridation."137What happened next is a classic study in denial. The Final Report publishedby the authors of the Newburgh-Kingston study refers only to the results ofTaylor's first round of tests, even though his second, conclusive round hadbeen peer-reviewed and published over two years before. They wrote:

"The reports by Alfred Taylor, a biochemist at the University of Texas, on theincreased incidence of cancer in mice drinking fluoride treated water havebeen shown to be unfounded, since the food he was giving the mice hadmany times the fluoride content of drinking water, and the food was suppliedto both the control and the experimental groups. Subsequent tests did notconfirm the differences."138

And this same denial has been repeated over and over for the succeeding 45years by the United States Public Health Service and its affiliates. Grahamand Morin cite a standard history of the National Institute of DentalResearch, published over 35 years later, alleging that Dr. Taylor refrainedfrom publishing his findings "because he was unable to confirm those resultsin a second experiment."139The author of this fabrication goes on to say that"a literature search of scientific journals failed to show any publication of thiswork by Taylor...."140 Legal scholars Graham and Morin comment: "Themost powerful forensic evidence of the importance of Dr. Taylor's work is

that the USPHS officials have done so much to conceal it."141

That was not to be the last study to reveal carcinogenic effects for fluoride,and it was not to be the last fluoride-related cover-up. In 1977, Dr. JohnYiamouyiannis and Dr. Dean Burk, former chief chemist at the NationalCancer Institute, released a study that linked fluoridation to 10,000 cancerdeaths per year in the U.S. Their inquiry, which compared cancer deaths in


26/48


27/48

science at EPA and the role of professional scientists, lawyers and engineerswho provide the interpretation of the available data and the judgmentsnecessary to protect the public health and the environment. Are scientists atEPA there to arrange facts to fit preconceived conclusions? Does the Agency

have a responsibility to develop world-class experts in the risks posed bychemicals we are exposed to every day, or is it permissible for EPA tocynically shop around for contractors who will provide them the 'correct'answers?"147

What were the NTP study results? Out of 130 male rats that ingested 45 to79 ppm of fluoride, 5 developed osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer. Therewere cases, in both males and females at those doses, of squamous cellcarcinoma in the mouth.148 Both rats and mice had dose-related fluorosis ofthe teeth, and female rats suffered osteosclerosis of the long bones.149

When Yiamouyiannis analyzed the same data, he found mice with aparticularly rare form of liver cancer, known as hepatocholangiocarcinoma.This cancer is so rare, according to Yiamouyiannis, that the odds of itsappearance in this study by chance are 1 in 2 million in male mice and l in100,000 in female mice.150 He also found precancerous changes in oralsquamous cells, an increase in squamous cell tumors and cancers, andthyroid follicular cell tumors as a result of increasing levels of fluoride indrinking water.151

A March 13, 1990, New York Times article commented on the NTP findings:

"Previous animal tests suggesting that water fluoridation might pose risks to

humans have been widely discounted as technically flawed, but the latestinvestigation carefully weeded out sources of experimental or statisticalerror, many scientists say, and cannot be discounted."152

In the same article, biologist Dr. Edward Groth notes: "The importance of thisstudy...is that it is the first fluoride bioassay giving positive results in whichthe latest state-of-the-art procedures have been rigorously applied... It has tobe taken seriously."153

On February 22, 1990, the Medical Tribune, an international medical newsweekly received by 125,000 doctors, offered the opinion of a federal scientistwho preferred to remain anonymous:"It is difficult to see how EPA can fail to regulate fluoride as a carcinogen inlight of what NTP has found. Osteosarcomas are an extremely unusual resultin rat carcinogenicity tests.

Toxicologists tell me that the only other substance that has produced this isradium....The fact that this is a highly atypical form of cancer implicates


28/48

fluoride as the cause. Also, the osteosarcomas appeared to be dose-related,and did not occur in controls, making it a clean study."154

Public health officials were quick to assure a concerned public that there was

nothing to worry about. The ADA said the occurrence of cancers in the labmay not be relevant to humans since the level of fluoridation in theexperimental animals' water was so high. But the Federal Register, which isthe handbook of government practices, disagrees: "The high exposure ofexperimental animals to toxic agents is a necessary and valid method ofdiscovering possible carcinogenic hazards in man. To disavow the findings ofthis test would be to disavow those of all such tests, since they are allconducted according to this standard."155

As a February 5, 1990, Newsweek article pointed out, "such mega dosing isstandard toxicological practice. It's the only way to detect an effect withoutusing an impossibly large number of test animals to stand in for the humansexposed to the substance."156 And as the Safer Water Foundation explains,higher doses are generally administered to test animals to compensate forthe animals' shorter life span and because humans are generally morevulnerable than test animals on a body-weight basis.157

Several other studies link fluoride to genetic damage and cancer. An articlein Mutation Research says that a study by Proctor and Gamble, the verycompany that makes Crest toothpaste, did research showing that 1 ppmfluoride causes genetic damage.158 Results were never published butProctor and Gamble called them "clean," meaning animals were supposedlyfree of malignant tumors. Not so, according to scientists who believe some of

the changes observed in test animals could be interpreted asprecancerous.159Yiamouyiannis says the Public Health Service sat on thedata, which were finally released via a Freedom of Information Act request in1989." Since they are biased, they have tried to cover up harmful effects,"he says. "But the data speaks for itself. Half the amount of fluoride that isfound in the New York City drinking water causes genetic damage."160

A National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences publication,Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, also linked fluoride to genetictoxicity when it stated that "in cultured human and rodent cells, the weightof evidence leads to the conclusion that fluoride exposure results in

increased chromosome aberrations."161 The result of this is not only birthdefects but the mutation of normal cells into cancer cells. The Journal ofCarcinogenesis further states that "fluoride not only has the ability totransform normal cells into cancer cells but also to enhance the cancer-causing properties of other chemicals."162

Surprisingly, the PHS put out a report called "Review of fluoride: benefits and


29/48

risks," in which they showed a substantially higher incidence of bone cancerin young men exposed to fluoridatedwater compared to those who were not. The New Jersey Department ofHealth also found that the risk of bone cancer was about three times as high

in fluoridated areas as in non-fluoridated areas.163

Despite cover-up attempts, the light of knowledge is filtering through tosome enlightened scientists. Regarding animal test results, the director ofthe U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, James Huff,does say that "the reason these animals got a few osteosarcomas wasbecause they were given fluoride...Bone is the target organ for fluoride." 164Toxicologist William Marcus adds that "fluoride is a carcinogen by anystandard we use. I believe EPA should act immediately to protect the public,not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis,mutagenicity, and other effects."165

One group working to illuminate the fluoride cover up is The EnvironmentalWorking Group (EWG) out of Washington-DC. In a letter referring to a 2005Harvard University study, EWGs Sr. Vice President Richard Wiles requestedthat the National Toxicology Program declared fluoride in tap water a knownor probable cancer cause.166 Expressing a similar sentiment to Britishnewspaper The Observer, Wiles stated Ive spent 20 years in public healthtrying to protect kids from toxic exposure. Even with DDT, you dont havethe consistently strong data that the compound can cause cancer as younow have with fluoride.167 The study that got the EWG talking becameavailable in 2001 and clearly linked fluoride in tap water, at levels commonin most of America, to a rare form of bone cancer called osteosarcoma.168Paul Connett notes that "some of the earliest opponents of fluoride werebiochemists and at least 14 Nobel Prize winners are among numerousscientists who have expressed their reservations about the practice offluoridation."169 He cites Dr, James Sumner, who won the Nobel Prize for hiswork on enzyme chemistry, who says, "We ought to go slowly. Everybodyknows fluorine and fluoride are very poisonous substances...We use them inenzyme chemistry to poison enzymes, those vital agents in the body. That isthe reason things are poisoned; because the enzymes are poisoned and thatis why animals and plants die."170

It is instructive to note that the fluoride compounds that are added to our

drinking water are not pharmaceuticals. They are direct, unfiltered wasteproducts of the aluminum and fertilizer industries.

Fluoride and LeadFluoride and its various compounds are toxic all by themselves, but itsinteraction with other toxic metals is of increasing concern. Research


30/48

published in the December 2000 issue of the journal NeuroToxicology warnsthat public drinking water treated with sodium silicofluoride or fluosilicic acid,known silicofluorides (SiFs), is linked to higher uptake of lead in children.171Less than 10% of fluoridation systems in the US use sodium fluoride, the

substance first used to fluoridate public drinking water in 1945. SiF's are nowused to treat drinking water for 140 million Americans. Yet the safety of SiFshas never been tested, nor have they been approved by the FDA.

The research was conducted by a team led by Roger D. Masters, DartmouthCollege Research Professor and Nelson A. Rockefeller Professor ofGovernment Emeritus, and Myron J. Coplan, a consulting chemical engineer,formerly Vice President of Albany International Corporation. The team hasnow studied the blood lead levels in over 400,000 children in three differentsamples. In each case, they found a significant link between SiF-treatedwater and elevated blood lead levels. The researchers found that the

greatest likelihood of children having elevated blood lead levels occurs whenthey are exposed both to known risk factors, such as old house paint andlead in soil or water, and to SiF-treated drinking water.172

"Our research needs further laboratory testing," said Masters. "This shouldhave the highest priority because our preliminary findings show correlationsbetween SiF use and more behavior problems due to known effects of leadon brain chemistry." Also requiring further examination is German researchthat shows SiFs inhibit cholinesterase, an enzyme that plays an importantrole in regulating neurotransmitters.173

"If SiFs are cholinesterase inhibitors, this means that SiFs have effects likethe chemical agents linked to Gulf War Syndrome, chronic fatigue syndromeand other puzzling conditions that plague millions of Americans," saidMasters. "We need a better understanding of how SiFs behave chemicallyand physiologically."174

"We should stop using silicofluorides in our public water supply until we knowwhat they do," says Masters.175

Fluoride and AluminumLead isn't the only metal that interacts with fluoride in a toxic combination.Aluminum is another.

In 1976, Dr. D. Allman and coworkers from Indiana University School ofMedicine fed animals 1 part-per-million (ppm) fluoride and found that in thepresence of aluminum, in a concentration as small as 20 parts per billion,fluoride is able to cause an even larger increase in cyclic AMP levels. CyclicAMP inhibits the migration rate of white blood cells, as well as the ability ofthe white blood cell to destroy pathogenic (disease-causing) organisms. The


31/48

fact that fluoride toothpastes and school based mouth rinses are packaged inaluminum accentuates the effect on the body.176

Research conducted by Mullenix and colleagues in 1995 indicated that rats

treated with low doses of fluoride cause sex- and dose-specific behavioralaberrations with a common pattern.177 Prenatal rats exposed becamehyperactive, while those exposed post-natal became hypoactive. This effectwas confirmed by a 2001 study in which administration of sodium fluoridewith drinking water produced both behavioral and dental toxicities. Asuppression of spontaneous motor activity, a shortening of Rota-rodendurance time, a decreased body weight gain and food intake, asuppression of total cholinesterase and acetyl cholinesterase activities anddental lesion were observed in test animals. Serum fluoride concentrationwas raised markedly and that of calcium was decreased in the animals.178

A 1998 study by Julie A. Varner and colleagues at the PsychologyDepartment of Binghamton University (NY) shows that neurotoxic effects likethese are enhanced by the synergetic action of fluoride and aluminum.179

Varner describes "alterations in the nervous system resulting fromchronic administration of the fluoroaluminum complex or equivalent levels offluoride in the form of sodium-fluoride. The rats were given fluoride indrinking water at the same level deemed "optimal" by pro-fluoridationgroups, namely 1 part per million (1 ppm). Most pronounced damage wasseen in animals that got the fluoride in conjunction with aluminum. Thepathological changes found in the brain tissue of the animals were similar tothe alterations found in the brains of people with Alzheimer's disease anddementia. The authors speculate that fluoride enables aluminum to cross theblood-brain barrier. These results are especially disturbing because of thelow dose level of fluoride that shows the toxic effect in rats - rats are moreresistant to fluoride than humans."180

Another study done in Czechoslovakia adds force to the idea that aluminummay act synergistically with fluoride to trigger the mechanisms ofAlzheimer's disease. The study shows that some of pathologic changesassociated with AD are not induced by aluminum alone, but by thealuminofluoride complexes. These complexes may act as the initial signalstimulating impairment of homeostasis, degeneration and death of the cells.By influencing energy metabolism these complexes can accelerate the aging

and impair the functions of the nervous system. "In respect to the etiology ofAD, the long term action of aluminofluoride complexes may represent aserious and powerful risk factor for the development of AD," the authorsconclude.181

Those who are under the belief that fluoride would rarely interact withaluminum have been misled. Fluoride is, in fact, a direct byproduct of


32/48

aluminum production. Aluminum is often added to drinking water as aflocculating agent, by the same local water authorities who oversee thefluoridation of water. Aluminum and fluoride form a number of complexes,the most deadly of these being aluminum tetra fluoride.182 Czech

researchers have shown that the body reacts to aluminum tetra fluoride as ifit were a phosphate ion capable of triggering G proteins. G-proteins arewater-soluble substances (i.e. hormones, neurotransmitters, and growthfactors) that transmit messages from the outside to the inside of a cell.183

Aluminum tetra-fluoride is capable of switching on G proteins withouthormones, neurotransmitters, or growth factors present.184 'This, notes PaulConnett, 'is the most worrisome aspect of fluoride subtle biochemistry."185

Fluoride and the Pineal GlandAnother concern is fluoride's effect on the pineal gland, a small but powerfulstructure located between the right and left hemispheres of the brain. The

pineal gland secretes melatonin, a hormone that affects such functions assleep cycles, jet lag, hibernation in animals, immunity, and the onset ofpuberty. Jennifer Luke, Ph.D., found that the pineal gland attracts fluoride,and, thereby, interferes with melatonin's functions.186 In autopsy studiesshe discovered extremely high concentrations of fluoride in the gland,averaging 9,000 ppm, and going up to 21,000 ppm in some cases.187 Andin an accompanying study of fluoride-treated Mongolian gerbils (the animalconsidered most favorable for studying effects on the pineal gland) Lukefound lower levels of melatonin and earlier onset of puberty.

This research is highly suggestive. People with insomnia could be suffering

as a result of fluoride's interference with melatonin production. Currentlymore than half the population of the United States suffers from some form ofsleep disturbance.188 Sleep deprivation promotes reduced immunity. Sleep-challenged people are more likely to suffer depression, stroke, or heartdisease than their well-rested peers. Numerous studies have correlatedinsufficient melatonin production with an earlier-than-usual onset ofpuberty.189, 190

This recalls the 1955 Newburgh-Kingston study, which produced someextremely puzzling results that scientists have yet to explain. One was thefinding that girls in fluoridated Newberg were reaching menstruation five

months earlier on average than the girls in un-fluoridated Kingston. Thisraises the question; does fluoride contribute to the alarming rates of earlypuberty that we are seeing?191 Premature menstruation is associated with avariety of ills, including breast cancer and obesity. A 2001 study published inthe American Journal of Public Health reveals that early maturation nearlydoubled the odds of being obese.192


33/48

Reproductive EffectsFluoride has long been known to undermine fertility in animals and man.193

In 1951 commercial chinchilla breeder named W.R. Cox reportedreproductive anomalies in commercially raised chinchillas fed with a high-

fluoride animal feed.194When Cox changed to a low-fluoride feed, "there wereincreases in the number of offspring born; the number of litters, and thenumbers born alive. The adult mortality rate decreased from 14.6% in 1951to 3.3% in 1952. A number of abnormalities associated with fluoride-contaminated feed were passed on through multiple generations."195

Cox, a layman, studied the scientific literature, and found more than 1400studies indicating fluoride's adverse effect on animals, especially soft tissuedamage. Cox was surprised to find that the scientists advocating publicwater fluoridation at the time showed no interest in these studies or theirpossible implications for human health.196

SC Freni participated in a 1991 USPHS review of the toxicity of fluoride.Searching for studies that correlated fluoride exposure with reproductiveeffects in humans, he discovered that in almost 50 years of fluoridation, noone had ever study fluoride's effect on the human fetus.197Freni's 1994 review of fluoride toxicity the National Center for ToxicologicalResearch showed decreased fertility in most animal species studied. Frenithen investigated whether fluoride would also affect human birth rates. Hestudied counties in which the water had a fluoride content of more than 3ppm. Most regions he studied showed an association of decreasing totalfertility rates (TFR) with increasing fluoride levels. There was no evidencethat this outcome resulted from selection bias, inaccurate data, or improperanalytical methods.198 Freni speculated that fluoride might lower proteinsynthesis in osteoblasts or that it inhibits the adenylyl cyclase system inhuman spermatozoa.199

In a 1994 study of mature rats treated with sodium fluoride, Narayana andChinoy200 found that fluoride interferes with androgenesis and damaged thetestes by inhibiting the action of testosterone. Another study by the sameteam studied human spermatozoa treated with 25, 50,and 250 mm of fluoride for 5, 10, and 20 minutes. Silver nitrate staining offluoride-treated sperm revealed elongated heads, de-flagellation, and loss ofthe acrosome together with coiling of the tail. Sperm glutathione levels also

showed a time-dependent decrease with complete depletion after 20minutes, indicating rapid glutathione oxidation in detoxification of the NaF.The altered lysosomal enzyme activity and glutathione levels together withmorphologic anomalies resulted in a significant decline in sperm motility withan effective dose of 250 mm.201

Fluoride and Intelligence


34/48

Several other studies link fluoride exposure to adverse effects onintelligence.

As far back as April 1944, as part of the secret Manhattan Project, there was

a memo passed around stating, Clinical evidence suggests that C616[uranium hydrofluoride] may have a rather marked central nervous systemeffect with mental confusion, drowsiness and lassitude.202Through thefollowing decades, numerous scientific studies determined the same thing:Fluorosis affects the nervous system and membrane lipids.

One investigation conducted in China measured the intelligence of childrenaged 8 to 13 with non, slight, medium, and serious fluorosis. It demonstrateda 15-19 point decrease in IQ among children in the fluorosis area ascompared with the non-fluorosis area.203 Another study of children'sintelligence and the metabolism of iodine and fluorine, also in China,

revealed that exposure to high levels of fluoride produced increasedprevalence of thyroid enlargement (29.8%) and dental fluorosis (72.9%), anda slightly lower average IQ as compared to control areas. The IQ differentialwas more pronounced (16.8%) when lower intelligence children were studiedseparately.204 Paul Connett cites a recent review by the Greater BostonPhysicians for Social Responsibility which found that fluoride interferes withbrain function in young animals and children.205

Enzyme Toxicity and Genetic DamageFluoride is a potent enzyme poison. Enzymes are special types of proteins,known as catalysts, which trigger thousands of chemical reactions in the

body. Enzymes are vital to our very existence, writes Dr. Anthony Cichoke:'During every moment of our lives, enzymes keep us going. At this veryinstant, millions of tiny enzymes are working throughout your body causingreactions to take place. You couldn't breathe, hold or turn the pages of thisbook, read its words, eat a meal, taste the food, or hear a telephone ringwithout enzymes. Even minute doses of 1 ppm of fluoride could preventessential biological reactions from taking place."206

While the mechanisms of enzyme destruction were not well understood inthe 1940's and 50's, scientists now believe that it could be due to fluoride'sinterference with magnesium, a vital cofactor needed by many enzymes to

perform catalytic functions. Another reason could be fluoride's ability to formstrong bonds with hydrogen. Hydrogen, a strongly positive element, bindseasily with the strong negatively-charged fluoride. Dr. Paul Connett explains:"Hydrogen bonding is at the very heart and soul of biochemistry. Proteinstructure and function revolve around hydrogen bonds. Hydrogen givesshape, and that shape can be easily manipulated with little energy. Enzymesusually catalyze around hydrogen bonds. In addition, the two strands of


35/48

DNA are held together with hydrogen bonds. So, you're striking at the veryheart of biology. It's a huge red flag to be extrem

fluoride: the deadly legacy

Documents